Exploding Five Myths About the Military's Gay Ban

About the Author

(Archived document, may contain errors)

1/11/93 349

EXPLODING FIVE MYTHS ABOUT THE MILITARY'S GAY BAN

During the presidential campaign, Bill Clinton pledged to end the
Pentagon's ban on homosexuals in the military. By doing this,
Clinton will neglect his constitutional responsibility to ensure
that U .S. armed forces, the finest in the world, am prepared to
fight. Clearly the new President, never having served in the
military himself, has accepted several myths about the military's
policy on homosexuals. Before he makes a serious mistake that could
un d ermine national security, Clinton should re-examine these
myths, and break a promise he never should have made. Myth #1: The
military's main objective should be to have the best personin the
job, regardless of sexual orientation. If battles were fought an d
won by individuals, this might be true. But combat is a team
endeavor. A mili- tary organization functions best when the
differences among individuals in a unit are minimized. That is why
soldiers look, act, dress, and train alike. Why break down all of t
hese differences only to inject the greatest difference of
all-individual sexual identity-into a unit? Civilians can
easily'avoid unwanted sexual attrac- tion from people of the same
sex. But in the military lifestyle of forced association, such
options s e ldom exist. Of course, the military wants the best
person it can get in a job-but only if that individual's abilities
contribute to the overall good of the team more than his personal
differences detract from it. Myth #2: Heterosexuals are
unreasonably af r aid of overt homosexual advances toward them.
Most heterosexual men who are likely to join the military are
troubled by the notion of homosexuality. It is this profound
discomfort, not the fear of actual homosexual advances, which would
destroy the person a l bonds that bring a military unit together.
Men are able to show mutual affection only when there are no sex-
ual implications. "Straight" men will not bond with men they know
to be homosexual nearly as well as with other straight men. Without
such bonds and the trust they create, men will not risk their lives
for each other or put their lives in each other's hands. This type
of fissure will wreck a combat unit. Myth #3: The politics of "gay
rights" will not affect military efficiency. Sanctioning the pre s
ence of homosexuals in the military would threaten the merit-based
system of the mili- tary, in which promotions and assignments are
made based on performance, not political or personal relation-
ships. The political power of the gay rights movement, whic h
Clinton courted during the campaign, would threaten the merit-based
system for which the military is highly regarded. Lifting the ban
would be followed by promotion quotas, and the risk of lawsuits if
gays were not promoted in representative numbers. Fea ring such a
political and legal backlash, military leaders might favor
homosexuals, causing resentment among their heterosexual troops.
Commanders making a decision unfavorable to a gay subordinate would
be ac-

cused of gay-bashing." This kind of sexual politics would
politicize promotions and assignments, undermin- ing military
discipline and eroding morale. Myth #4: The current policy violates
the rights of homosexuals to serve their country. Military service
is a privilege, not a right. Access to the m ilitary has never been
fair. Because victories in combat are achieved by cohesive units,
the armed forces routinely sacrifice individual interests to ensure
unit cohesion. Military service is legally restricted or denied
entirely to patriotic Americans wh o are too tall, too short, too
fat, color blind, flat-footed, and mentally or physically
handicapped in any way. There are other re- strictions; single
parents, for example, are not allowed to enlist. This is no
reflection on the inherent worth of these pe o ple as human beings;
they are simply not suited for military service. Professional
military judgment and experience indicate that mixing known
homosexuals with heterosexuals degrades cohesion and combat
effectiveness. It is not the individual qualities of the
homosexual, but rather homosexuality itself, which is in-
compatible with military service. Myth #5: Military personnel will
accept known homosexuals among their ranks If ordered to do so.

Military effectiveness rests on more than commands from above.
Men risk their lives under orders, but only because they trust
their commanders and their comrades - and their Commander-in-Chief.
Most Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality in the
military; in a September 4, 1992, USA Weekend sur- vey, 67 perce n
t of the respondents wanted the ban to continue. No change in
Pentagon policy can change these feelings. It might drive them
beneath the surface where, as any experienced leader knows,
problems are usually far worse than when they are out in the open.
A c o mmanding officer who is known to be gay will en- counter so
much mistrust, if not hostility, that his ability to lead his unit
will be severely compromised. All kinds of orders and punishments
will not make men willingly put their lives in his hands. What
About AIDS? The risk of AIDS is itself sufficient reason to deny
gays the privilege of serving in the U.S. military. In bat- de, men
must be sure that the blood they may encounter is free of the
deadly HIV virus. This is not a frivo- lous concern, like be i ng
afraid to bump into "Magic" Johnson on a basketball court; people
bleed on each other in battle, and the wounded frequently require
battlefield transfusions from their fellow soldiers to stay alive.
Nor is this fear of HIV unfounded-, according to the f ederal
Centers for Disease Control, two-thirds of U.S. AIDS cases are
found among gay men. Testing may not reveal the presence of HIV for
months. Surely not all homosexuals have HIV, but their behavior
places them at high risk. This is a medical fact, and it begs the
question: Should American soldiers be exposed-or think they are
being exposed-to a deadly disease with no known cure just for the
sake of gay rights? And what about the wounded gay soldier, will
his com- rades be afraid to help him because he m ay have
contracted HIV since his last test? That is not fair to anyone
involved. Because he willfully evaded military service himself,
Bill Clinton must overcome the initial mistrust of most military
professionals. Promising a change in policy with such t r emendous
implications for the military would not be a good beginning. To be
sure, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces,
re- gardless of his ideology. But the sole purpose of the military
is to win in combat, not to advance the right s and equality of
individuals. The Commander-in-Chief who puts ideology ahead of this
principle will endan- ger the nation and every person in the
military who puts his life in the President's hands.